Most Important Question For Me In Democratic Debate
Towards the end of the Democratic debate Tim Russert quoted a person who had been a guest on Meet the Press.
The statement by the unknown speaker was this:
“Imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number 3 guy in Al Qaeda. We know there is a big bomb going off in America in 3 days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him?
We could set up a law where the president could make a finding or guarantee a pardon.”
Obama, Biden and Clinton were asked if they would do that and all said we should not use torture.
After Hillary Clinton gave her disapproval of the idea Russert said, “The guest who laid out that scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton, last year.”
Hillary looked a bit off-message until Russert told her Bill disagreed with her and she responded, “Well, he’s not standing here right now.”
A priceless moment. Most of the rest of the debate was centered around running against President Bush who is not on the ticket next year.
Update: It seems Hillary also said the same thing:
Written by ~J~When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC “Meet the Press” appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:
“Well, I’ll talk to him later.”
She may have to give herself that talk, too.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said.
Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.
Sue Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pmVisit Sue
Oh my, there had to be fire in Mrs. Clintons eyes that Tim Russert would even presume to lay out such a scenario.
I would imagine that would be a bit uncomfortable but it would not suprise me to see the former President will make an appearance somewhere to “clarify” his prior statement and align it with the Senator’s.
Big Mo Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 9:14 amVisit Big Mo
A gigantic kudos to Russert! It’s about time these Dems get slapped around!
Guss Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:04 amVisit Guss
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said.
Guss Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:09 amVisit Guss
I know that you like reading things into something that isn’t there. Where do you see where she says she would or will.
~J~ Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:31 amVisit ~J~
The part you highlight is almost word for word what her husband said, and I taped the debate and gave an exact quote of what she said. Add to that the fact she said at least twice last night she and her husband had been having a continuing discussion for 36 years and kind of know what the other one thinks.
~J~ Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:44 amVisit ~J~
To help you better understand here is the quote from the NY Daily News that clears it up: She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture… Draw your own conclusions.